Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report: Boston Borough Council

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (James Plaskitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the BFI inspection report on Boston Borough Council was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
	In 2004–05, Boston Borough Council administered some £13 million in housing benefits, about 44 per cent of its gross revenue expenditure.
	In 2004–05 the council reported that it was taking 57 days on average to process new claims to housing benefits. At the time of the inspection in July 2005 the majority of the management team had been in post only for a few months but performance was beginning to improve as the backlog of claims had been cut. Allowing for some misreporting of performance the council was taking an average of 47 days to process new claims in the first quarter of 2005–06. However, significant further improvement is needed to meet the standard of 36 days.
	BFI found significant delays at each stage of the new claims process and in processing changes of circumstances. The longest delays were in the time taken to obtain all required information from customers. No monitoring of the throughput or clearance of work meant there was a lack of control over the flow of work. A limited management checking regime meant the council did not have reliable feedback on the quality of work done or the ability to identify areas where performance needed to be improved.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is considering the report and may ask the council for proposals in response to BFI's findings.

Debt Relief

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Excellent progress has been made on implementing the two key commitments on debt relief made by G8 leaders at the Gleneagles summit in July. In addition, the UK has granted further bilateral debt relief over the summer, and I take this opportunity to provide an update on the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative.
	At Gleneagles, the G8 proposed 100 per cent cancellation of the debts owed by qualifying countries to the International Monetary Fund, the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank, and the African Development Fund (AfDF) of the African Development Bank. Since then, the proposal has been discussed by the board of directors of each institution and received broad support, including from African countries. The IDA and IMF components were agreed at the annual meetings of the World Bank and IMF. The approval process is underway at the African Development Bank. We are working with others to resolve outstanding technical issues, and are confident that implementation of the new debt relief will begin in 2006. Up to $55 billion will be cancelled for the current 38 HIPCs, and we estimate that about $1 billion a year will be freed up for spending on poverty reduction in 2007, rising to $1.7 billion by 2010.
	Countries will receive this 100 per cent irrevocable debt cancellation when they complete the HIPC Initiative. There will be no further conditions attached. Countries that have already completed HIPC will need to demonstrate that they have maintained their commitment to poverty reduction and good macro-economic and public expenditure management. The allocation of additional donor resources through the existing performance based allocation systems will then maintain a strong incentive for good policy and performance. In addition, bank and fund staff will continue to monitor and report on the overall efficiency of public expenditure as well as on progress in reducing corruption and enhancing transparency in recipient countries.
	To ensure that the financing capacity of the World Bank and African Development Bank is not reduced, we and other G8 partners have committed to cover our share of the cost of the debt cancellation for IDA and the AfDF. We will make funds available ahead of the debt cancellation to cover the costs to the World Bank and African Development Bank for the next three years. We have committed to meet our share of ongoing costs for the duration of the loans, which in some cases is 40 years. These funds will be additional to the resources we had already agreed for these institutions as part of the recent replenishments of the concessional funds of the World Bank and the African Development Bank. G8 Finance Ministers have agreed that in future replenishment rounds the costs of the debt relief initiative be reported separately to ensure that they are clearly distinguishable. Debt relief at the IMF will be funded through internal resources as far as possible, but donors will provide additional resources if needed to ensure that the IMF's financing capacity is maintained.
	The G8 also made a commitment to the achievement of a fair and sustainable solution to Nigeria's debt problems with the Paris Club of government creditors. I am able to report that a deal was formally agreed at the Paris Club on Thursday 20 October. This deal sees approximately $18 billion of Nigeria's debt cancelled, the remainder being repaid by Nigeria using part of its oil windfall. The UK's share of the debt cancellation is approximately $5.1 billion. The deal will be implemented in two phases over the next six months, after which Nigeria's entire debt to Paris Club creditors will have been resolved. This is the largest single debt deal ever reached with an African country. The government of Nigeria have committed to ring fence the debt savings of about $1 billion a year to tackle poverty, and have invited national and international monitoring of all the spending, including by representatives of UK NGOs.
	Steady progress is being made in implementing the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. This targets the poorest, most indebted countries, reducing their debt burdens to sustainable levels, alongside reforms that help to ensure that resources freed up are spent on poverty reduction. Rwanda, Zambia and Honduras all completed the HIPC process earlier this year and received irrevocable debt stock reductions. Most recently Burundi completed the first stage of HIPC by reaching decision point and so qualified for relief on its debt service payments. We expect other countries to qualify or complete the process early next year. The IMF and World Bank have stated that several more countries will be considered for the exceptional debt relief under HIPC. This is a result of the extended "sunset clause" which now gives countries until the end of 2006 to meet the criteria for being considered under HIPC—an extension that the UK was instrumental in lobbying for. A final list of countries is expected in early 2006. Both creditors and debtors need to maintain their efforts to ensure the full financing of the HIPC Initiative, and the full participation of all creditors. The UK is the second largest bilateral contributor to the HIPC trust fund, which helps multilateral organisations deliver their HIPC assistance in a timely manner. The UK has committed $436 million to date (including our share of the EC contribution) and in August made our latest payment—$20 million to cover the costs to the African Development Bank of debt stock write-off for Rwanda.
	Once implemented, the G8 multilateral debt cancellation deal will supersede the UK's Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI) for HIPC countries. For other qualifying countries, we will continue to cover 10 per cent of their debt service to IDA and the AfDF.
	In addition, the UK will give debt relief on about £42 million of development loans granted via the EU in the 1970s to 40 less developed countries. In 1978 the (then nine) EU member states provided the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA) with $428.5 million to be lent on concessional terms. Earlier this year it was agreed that these should be treated as bilateral rather than joint funds. Consequently we will manage the UK share of these loans in line with international and UK policy on debt relief. All the nine member states involved have agreed to cancel the loans to countries that have completed HIPC. In line with our policies, the UK will forgo payments from decision point and hold in trust payments between December 2000 and decision point; these moneys will then be repaid when countries reach completion point. The total cost to the UK of cancellation for the HIPC countries will be about £22 million. In addition, I have decided to provide relief on our share (about £20 million) of the loans to the poorest non-HIPC countries, provided they are committed to poverty reduction, human rights and sound public financial management.
	I have decided to grant assistance to the government of Belize for a further year under the Commonwealth Debt Initiative (CDI). This decision will mean that Belize will not repay £1.458 million worth of official debt to the UK (representing payments that were due in the financial year 2003–04). The government of Belize will put the money towards agreed poverty reduction initiatives and associated economic reform.

Departmental Payment Performance 2004–05

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Alan Johnson, has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The overall payment performance of Government is 97.09 per cent. Figures for the financial year 2004–05 show that there has been a continuing improvement on last year's figure of 96.68 per cent. There has also been a continued improvement in the payment performance of a number of departments and agencies, with 65 per cent achieving the average or above, and 54 per cent improving on their performance of last year.
	Government departments and their agencies are required to monitor their payment performance and to publish the results in their departmental or annual reports. The table lists, by department, the proportion of bills paid within 30 days, or other agreed credit period, on receipt of a valid invoice.
	The Government take this issue very seriously and are committed to improving the payment culture in the UK in order to create fair and stable business transactions. The Government's own payment performance is an important element in this policy.
	
		Annual Results of Departmental Payment Performance 2004–05
		
			 Main Departments 2004-05 Paid on Time(percentage) 
			 Defence Bills Agency (Ministry of Defence) 100.00 
			 Privy Council Office 100.00 
			 Office for Government Commerce 99.86 
			 Office of Gas and Electricity Mkts (OFGEM) 99.42 
			 Office of Water Services (OFWAT) 99.41 
			 Health and Safety Executive 99.37 
			 The National Archives (Public Records Office) 99.30 
			 Intelligence Agencies (GCHQ) 99.07 
			 Department for Culture, Media and Sport 98.77 
			 Department for Transport 98.75 
			 Scotland Office (Department for ConstitutionalAffairs) 98.75 
			 Office of Fair Trading 98.56 
			 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 98.56 
			 HM Revenue and Customs 98.50 
			 Wales Office (Department for ConstitutionalAffairs) 98.45 
			 Charity Commission 98.12 
			 Office for National Statistics 97.95 
			 Export Credit Guarantee Department 97.85 
			 Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) 97.43 
			 Cabinet Office (OPS) 97.13 
			 Forestry Commission 96.96 
			 Electoral Commission 96.58 
			 Department for Education and Skills 96.54 
			 Department for National Savings andInvestments 96.51 
			 Food Standards Agency 96.43 
			 Postal Services Commission (PostCom) 96.43 
			 Department for Work and Pensions 96.28 
			 Department for International Development 95.86 
			 Ordnance Survey 95.68 
			 Office of the Rail Regulator 95.33 
			 Treasury Solicitors Department 94.91 
			 Central Office of Information 94.82 
			 Serious Fraud Office 93.58 
			 Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs (DEFRA) 92.97 
			 Land Registry 92.79 
			 Department of Health 92.49 
			 Royal Mint 92.05 
			 UK Trade and Investment 90.65 
			 HM Treasury 90.23 
			 Crown Prosecution Service 89.67 
			 Department for Constitutional Affairs (LordChancellor's Department) 89.51 
			 Government Actuary's Department 87.47 
			 Department of Trade and Industry 87.33 
			 Home Office 86.59 
			 Northern Ireland Office 85.33 
			 Foreign and Commonwealth Office 68.22 
			 Overall Total 97.09

Immigration: Electronic Monitoring

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My honourable friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality (Tony McNulty) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Section 36 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 allows for the electronic monitoring of those liable to be detained under the Immigration Acts. This includes asylum seekers, illegal entrants, those found working in breach of their conditions of stay, overstayers, people subject to further examination at a port of entry, and those refused leave to enter.
	Electronic monitoring takes three forms: telephone reporting using voice recognition techniques, tagging and tracking. These are being used, in combination with face to face contact at immigration reporting centres, to improve compliance with the requirements we place on people to remain in contact with us. Contact management, including electronic monitoring, is a key aspect of the new asylum model as described in the five-year plan.
	During the passage of the 2004 Act, the then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Beverley Hughes, stated that an electronic monitoring requirement would be imposed only with the consent of the individual. This commitment was reiterated when her successor Des Browne wrote to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Consent is not a statutory requirement but was introduced as a matter of policy in recognition of the novel use of electronic monitoring in the immigration context.
	The electronic monitoring pilots have generally been a success, but asking for the subject's consent is inconsistent with any other area of contact management. It hampered our ability to manage contact with people flexibly because the need for consent left us with very little recourse if the individual failed to give it or where, having initially agreed to be monitored electronically, they subsequently failed to comply. That is why I agreed a change in the policy before the summer recess to allow the immigration service to draw up contact management plans without first seeking the consent of the individual. The consideration of whether the individual will comply with specific requirements will be part of the process of deciding how best to manage contact and this change places us in a stronger position by enabling us to consider what action to take where someone fails to comply with an electronic monitoring requirements.
	The impact on compliance in the short period since the change in policy has been positive. Between July and September, of 53 people who failed initially to comply with telephone reporting, 47 began to do so after one written warning that their continued failure might lead to their re-detention. Since the start of the pilot in October 2004, we have tagged 49 people, 23 of them since the policy on consent was changed, but we have seen no adverse impact on the level of compliance notwithstanding that we have tagged a larger proportion of high risk cases without seeking their consent.
	This is a promising start, but we shall continue to monitor the situation as electronic monitoring is applied in increasing numbers. I will update the House on the progress we are making in a further Statement early in the new year.

NHS Pharmaceutical Services Regulations 1992

Lord Warner: My right honourable friend the Minister of State (Jane Kennedy) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	In August 2003, the department consulted on a package of proposals to reform the regulatory system governing National Health Service community pharmacy services. It also put forward possible options for further reform which, if pursued, would require primary legislation. When announcing the programme to implement the reforms in autumn 2004, Ministers said they would consider introducing new primary legislation:
	to enable reasonable charges, but not full cost recovery, to be introduced for applications concerning a chemist's inclusion on a NHS primary care trust list; and
	to allow NHS primary care trusts to take into account, when assessing applications, the improvements they would bring to the provision of, or access to, over-the-counter medicines and other healthcare products.
	Ministers committed to consult further on such legislation. This consultation started on 25 July 2005 and ended on 20 September 2005.
	These proposals are included in the Health Bill published on 27 October 2005. In relation to the second proposal, this will apply only where a primary care trust is assessing competing applications together.
	A paper summarising the 29 responses received has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

Office of Rail Regulation

Lord Davies of Oldham: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Derek Twigg) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	The Railways Act 2005 provided for the transfer of certain health and safety functions on the railway (and other guided transport systems) from the Health and Safety Commission to the Office of Rail Regulation. In addition, regulations are required to transfer responsibility for the enforcement of health and safety legislation relating to such transport systems from the Health and Safety Executive to the Office of Rail Regulation. Draft regulations will also make clear that the Office of Rail Regulation will not have health and safety responsibilities for fairground equipment, guided buses or trolley buses. I have today published a consultation document on the draft regulations. The consultation will close on 5 December.
	At the same time I have launched a consultation document on draft regulations under which the rail industry would fund the health and safety functions of the Office of Rail Regulation by means of a levy. The consultation on that document closes on 16 December.
	Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

Sanctions

Lord Triesman: The Government have committed themselves to informing Parliament on an annual basis of the sanctions regimes being implemented by the United Kingdom. Currently the United Kingdom implements mandatory United Nations sanctions, imposed by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in relation to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Côte d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Somalia. The UK also implements sanctions regimes imposed autonomously by the EU in relation to Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burma, China, the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (in connection with individuals indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), Moldova, Sudan and Zimbabwe. In accordance with a decision of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the United Kingdom implements arms embargoes on Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Government also take full account of the Economic Community of West African States moratorium on certain exports of small arms and light weapons to the Economic Community of West African States members. A full list of sanctions regimes and restrictive measures implemented by the UK has been published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website at www.fco.gov.uk/sanctions.

Sudan: Darfur

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 17 October the World Health Organisation and Sudanese Ministry of Health published the report of the second Darfur mortality survey. This was a six-month retrospective mortality survey, covering the period from Eid ul Fitr in November 2004 to the start of the survey in May. The first survey was undertaken in August 2004 and covered deaths over a two-month period.
	The report showed that while mortality rates in Darfur are still above baseline levels, they are significantly lower than the first survey and are below the international crisis threshold of one death per 10,000 people per day. In north and south Darfur, the average mortality rate was found to be 0.8 deaths per 10,000 people per day, and in west Darfur it was measured at 0.6 deaths per 10,000 people per day. The Red Cross/NGO "Sphere" project on minimum standards in disaster response puts the baseline mortality rate for Sub-Saharan Africa at 0.44 deaths per 10,000 people per day.
	Due to poor security, the survey teams were unable to access some parts of Darfur—especially south Darfur where the results apply only to internally displaced people in camps. The report also notes that there are times when mortality rates rise because of temporary increases in violence, seasonal disease outbreaks or breakdowns in food supply. Applying these mortality rates to the entire region for the entire year would therefore be misleading.
	I am placing a copy of the report in the Library of the House of Commons.

Syria and Lebanon: UN Sanctions

Lord Triesman: With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the United Nations Security Council on 31 October 2005 adopted UNSCR 1636 (2005) which calls on Syria to comply with the UN International Independent Investigation Commission inquiry into events surrounding the assassination of the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafiq Hariri.
	UNSCR 1636 (2005) warns Syria that if it does not co-operate with the UN inquiry then the Security Council will consider what further action is appropriate. The resolution also establishes sanctions against individuals suspected of involvement in the planning, sponsoring, organisation or perpetration of the assassination. The individual sanctions imposed comprise an assets freeze and a travel ban, with individuals being proposed by the UN Commission or Lebanese Government with the agreement of a UN sanctions committee established by UNSCR 1636 (2005). The sanctions committee will also be responsible for making decisions on permissible exemptions to the application of the individual measures. Such exemptions are defined by the resolution as including travel for humanitarian purposes (including in connection with religious obligation) and funds for basic expenses such as medical treatment, food and accommodation.
	The measures will remain in place until the sanctions committee reports to the Security Council that all investigative and judicial proceedings relating to the assassination have been completed, unless the Security Council decides otherwise.